Chapter Two: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism

Four Perspectives on Moral Judgments Cultural relativism Subjective relativism Emotivism Ethical objectivism

Subjective relativism The view that an action is right if one approves of it

Subjective relativism Implications: Each person is morally infallible— incapable of being in error. Genuine moral disagreement between individuals is nearly impossible. Moral judgments are a matter of preference (even “taste”) rather than right and wrong.

The view that an action is right if one’s culture approves of it Cultural relativism The view that an action is right if one’s culture approves of it

The Argument for Cultural Relativism People’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture. If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. Therefore, right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles.

The Argument for Cultural Relativism The argument is valid. Premise 1 is true. Premise 2 is false.

The Argument for Cultural Relativism Even if the moral judgments of people in various cultures do differ, that in itself does not show that morality is relative to culture. People can differ in their moral judgments not just because they accept different moral principles, but also because they have divergent nonmoral beliefs.

Cultural Relativism and Tolerance There is no necessary connection between tolerance and cultural relativism. Cultural relativists cannot consistently advocate tolerance. According to cultural relativism, intolerance can be justified just as easily as tolerance can. Rejecting cultural relativism (embracing moral objectivism) does not entail intolerance.

Cultural relativism Implications: That cultures are morally infallible That cultural values cannot be criticized from outside the culture That social reformers within a culture are, by definition, morally wrong That moral progress is virtually impossible

Emotivism The view that moral judgments cannot be either true or false, but are instead expressions of emotion or attitude

Emotivism Implications: Moral disagreements are not disagreements of fact, but instead are differences in attitude There are no moral facts, only attitudes about moral judgments There are no such properties as “goodness” or “badness,” and thus nothing is actually good or bad

Ethical Objectivism Asserts that some moral judgments are universal (valid for everyone) Not the same as absolutism, which does not acknowledge that objective principles may allow for exceptions depending on circumstances

Ethical Objectivism Implications: Moral disagreements can be resolved using reasoning Moral judgments and actions can be evaluated according to objective standards